I hope there is no ranking system in the next iinstallment of zombies. It was good idea in theory but a horrible idea in practice. I don't get why people care so much about there rank, it a nameless accomplishment IMO. All it does is make people play zombies for the wrong reasons. I've never seen so many people quit a match just cause they got off to a bad start by getting downed a few times early.

Most people play with the same people they always play with anyway, so why is important to show off for people you'll probably play with once anyway. I get that we all want to say where in the top few in the world at the game but in the grand scheme of thing that's not saying much. Anyone can run in a circle and shoot into a pile of the undead and make it to round whatever feel like making it to.

Just be a team player and respectful to the random people you play with and they'll respect you more then they would just cause your a high rank.

I do agree that rank system was a total fail... Hope it's takin off IF they make a new zombie game...

The problem is the MP influence in the concept of stats.

The things that are truly important to zombie players are not in the stats. It's fine to track the stuff they do have but it says little about the persons skills. Connecting the rank to those stats is just carrying a useless feature another degree forward....it's double useless.

They should have done the ranking system just like the MP ranking. Each zombie is like 1 xp, PAP a gun 20 xp... Of course not the same amount of xp per level or whatever, but it woulda make such a better gaming experience. Nowaday, most good zombie players don't play with randoms anymore, so we all know what we are worth, rank means not much

They should have done the ranking system just like the MP ranking. Each zombie is like 1 xp, PAP a gun 20 xp... Of course not the same amount of xp per level or whatever, but it woulda make such a better gaming experience.

Any stat based on repetition vs skill is going to result in the same thing. Given the K/D connection to rank.....your "1 xp per kill" suggestion is basically what we have now.

How many times you PaP has little to do with talent....and would result in a senseless cycle of delays as people hold a zombie as they run from wall gun to PaP and blow the 100k they racked up. To be totally frank, I see fewer trips to the PaP as a better sign of skill than what you suggest.

The "things" we value when looking for a high round team mate or what we like about our friends we frequently play with is where any redesigned ranking system should begin. How many kills they can pound out playing marathon solo games says nothing.

I am not talking about any skills there, it would clearly mean ALOT less rage quitting if there was no rank system unless it's xp based like MP. Prestige Master means nothing in MP, should be the same on Z... Going down on early rounds wouldn't be a reason to rage quit anymore...Would make the game more enjoyable with randoms that it is right now...

I am not talking about any skills there, it would clearly mean ALOT less rage quitting if there was no rank system unless it's xp based like MP. Prestige Master means nothing in MP, should be the same on Z... Going down on early rounds wouldn't be a reason to rage quit anymore...Would make the game more enjoyable with randoms that it is right now...

So all you are suggesting really is that they remove the relationship between downs and rank.

Randoms quitting has more to do with crap players that blow all their points, have no skills to recover...usually not even enough to buy jug and when they down or god forbid, die out......they quit to start fresh.

BO1 didn't have the stupid rank system and quitters still quit. The number of "rank quitters" is tiny compared to "restart quitters" and you can eliminate most by just not playing with random with a shotgun rank.

Do you tell me that people rage quit on Bo1 and WaW as often as on Bo2? Because i dunno, i never played those. I just make a connection between rank and rage quitting, yes. I won't start another topic about that, but Shotties rage quit ALOT more than any other rank, at least from what i've seen during my time playing Bo2. So yes, rank is a huge reason player rage quit when they go down on early round.

Do you tell me that people rage quit on Bo1 and WaW as often as on Bo2? Because i dunno, i never played those. I just make a connection between rank and rage quitting, yes. I won't start another topic about that, but Shotties rage quit ALOT more than any other rank, at least from what i've seen during my time playing Bo2. So yes, rank is a huge reason player rage quit when they go down on early round.

Quitting has been a problem since WaW....there has almost always been a direct connection to skill, meaning a early round box humper is likely to quit as soon as he loses his box gun......since he blew his easy round points to get it and the lack of skill and dependency on a strong gun.

These players, and the lobbies are filled with them btw, will always quit....the only determining factor is "when". When the strength of their gun stops dropping the zombies, they will go down.....thus the constant box humping for WW and high ammo guns. All guns and no skills.

I can usually see it coming as soon as the box is reached.....by round 10 or so in BO1 and WaW, you can look at the point totals and just about tell who's going to be quitting if they down or die.

This is why I say that a skill based rank versus a tally based rank is much better.

BO1 was no where near the nightmare BO2 is. When you started a game you knew how a player would perform by looking at their high rounds and their contribution to that game. Of course it wasn't a guarantee, but I personally found it to be pretty reliable.

A game where players are of different skills is rubbish for everyone. Like you say, the weakest player will run out of money (knuckle cash was a great idea) and skill, all while the better player is feeling the game hasn't got going. The best games for me are when people match my skill level, neither better, nor worse.

I can't help but think any skill based rank is going to run into unforeseen problems. Can't we wait till BO4 before we **** things up again? Lets just have one old school zombie game, where we have 2 smaller maps instead of 1 massive PITA every map pack, and no ranks, just fun!

BO1 was no where near the nightmare BO2 is. When you started a game you knew how a player would perform by looking at their high rounds and their contribution to that game. Of course it wasn't a guarantee, but I personally found it to be pretty reliable.

I agree....seeing the lobby leaderboards was infinitely better than the garbage replacement in BO2. However, I disagree that it was reliable and over time it became worse.

Eventually....even crappy box bangers hook up with 3 solid killers and get carried well past their abilities. The BO1 method was best in the first month and the reliability diminished slowly over time.

In addition....both systems are worthless without some glitcher pruning code. I'm also convinced that they deprecate games by adding glitches.....take the knife lunge glitches on COTD and Ascension as an example....they appeared right before the launch of BO2.

I'm also convinced that they deprecate games by adding glitches.....take the knife lunge glitches on COTD and Ascension as an example....they appeared right before the launch of BO2.

The Ascension and CotD knife lunge glitches were actually present before Moon launched, and unfortunately were not spotted by the dev's so did not get patched in the final update that was dropped 5 days after Moon dropped on PS3 and PC.

Outwidth this, knife lunge glitches were present on BO1 right from day 1. Thankfully they took the knife lunge feature out of BO2, or at least the ability to manually charge them up. It was a pointless feature

Still, even though glitches were still prominent in BO1, it did not affect many of my public matches, but when it did, I just quit out and added the glitcher to my avoid list straight away.

I would prefer to see lobby leaderboard's return myself, as the stat side of things was something that promoted selfish play. I know glitchers can still glitch to get high rounds, but it gave you a better idea of who you were playing with than the current setup does.

God, yes please, just end the ranking system completely. I'm glad they tried it though, as it was something we all thought we wanted.. until we had it.

I played my first few public games for ages the other day, and I needn't explain how game after game someone jumped out. The last game we played, we thought we had a genuinely good guy. But by round 20 something he'd gone down 4 times, you could feel his frustration, before he exclaimed, "I'm going to have to drop out before I throw my controller through the TV"

There is never going to be a better way of utilizing stats than in BO1. The say it all. And the only way to boost it is to play high rounds and not drop out. Result!

MP punishes you when you quit early or kill teamates. I'd say, specially for those casual rage quitters out there, give em a 30 mins punishement for leavin' 3 games in a row before round 15. Would make perfect sense Or remove that useless rank system... Or take the xp suggestion into thinking, i don't see anyone brags they are prestige master on MP, why shouldn't it be the same on Z? If only they'd make another Z game, but i dunno, all good things need to END...

I think a ranking system could work, it's just theirs failed miserably. There are only 5 different ranks and between skulls, knifes and shotgunners it is hard to tell who will be best to play with. Scrap the tally marks as I don't think anyone cares how many days people play in a row and they just confuse things. For this example I'm going to use a number system from 15 to 1 where 15 is your starting rank and 1 is the top rank. I'm going to use weapons as emblems to represent a visible progression as you move up in rank.

1. Elemental Staff

2. Sliquifier

3. Paralyzer

4. Blundergat

5. Ray Gun Mark 2

6. Ray Gun

7. Galil

8. SVU

9. Python

10. MP-40

11. PDW-57

12. Five-Seven

13. Remington

14. M1911

15. knife

These ranks would be based on k/d but only a certain number of players can have each rank. For example, if there are 150,000 ranked players, only 10,000 can be rank 1. The more ranks the better as in the old ranking system a knife or a Remington would both be the same rank.

As well as the ranks, you will have a number next to your rank from 1-100 and everyone starts at 50. 100 is the worst and 1 is the best. Stats such as rage quitting, not reviving, teamwork, opened doors, box humping will be rated here and you will be given a score accordingly. Therefore, if someone has the elemental staff rank, but has 85 points next to it, you know they are a very skilled player but a nightmare to have on your team. If someone has the MP-40 rank, with 25 points next to it, you know their skill is not the best, but they are a good team player.

Although players will still want to rank up, if they rage quit it will effect their point score and make better players less likely to play with them. Also, who would want to have the elemental staff rank with a score of 100 next to it?

For this example I'm going to use a number system from 15 to 1 where 15 is your starting rank and 1 is the top rank. I'm going to use weapons as emblems to represent a visible progression as you move up in rank.

1. Elemental Staff

2. Sliquifier

3. Paralyzer

4. Blundergat

5. Ray Gun Mark 2

6. Ray Gun

7. Galil

8. SVU

9. Python

10. MP-40

11. PDW-57

12. Five-Seven

13. Remington

14. M1911

15. knife

Paralyze at 3rd best rank? LOL!!!!

That gun alone is probably responsible for 95% of all the fake shotgun ranks in BO2

Yeah, it's definitely not accurate, i'd have the mark 2 higher aswell, but it's just a template. I wouldn't necessarily use the guns as emblems, it's just an example of more ranks and a way of knowing what they mean. I personally think the scoring system for kills should be different as well, to solve the problems of only using over powered weapons. A player who mainly uses the ray gun should get less rank points per kill than someone who mainly uses an automatic wall gun. And it shouldn't just be k/d, a round 1 zombie should do less for your rank than a round 20 zombie, then people who can't hit the high rounds can't boost by only playing early rounds

This would give us more unique emblems and actually show a bit more true ranking due to Rep system, not k/d and all that crap they track.

If all they did was rank people based on their "avoid/preferred" it would be 10 times better than what we have. People would be a heck of a lot more considerate in random matches.

For the cost of a couple of web conferences with about 50 players of various skills, I could hammer out a rank system that was fair and reliable. If I can do it, so can they....If they can't code it into the game with the millions of dollars in profits it's because they don't want to or don't care.

Agreed, I'm just saying that this would show if a player is dedicated enough to finish EEs or not. It wouldn't necessarily be a "rank" as opposed to a "status" which I like. If you wanted a long high round game, play with guys who have finished a lot. If you wanted to help out some noobs, play with guys who have next to nothing done.

The only reason I would like it is it seems like majority of zombs players are skulls. When I try to play with them, sometimes they are really grateful to have someone come in and show them the ropes, and sometimes they think theyre already good and know everything. Problem is you never know because ranks don't show knowledge of maps.

I can see the avoid/preferred working well, if they ever were going to try and fix this failed ranking system they have now in the next game (assuming there even will be one)

The avoid/preferred method sounds good. Will make those who are a nightmare to play with polish their team-work skills or face not having a large pool of players for coop. This would weed out most of the selfish/trollers/glitchers etc and the majority of the community can have fun.

However with Treyarch, the endgame might be just with the numbers. I.e. for them they just want as many people to play as possible...so a system that deliberately pushes the selfish/trollers/glitchers away, who in the end are their customers of Treyarch anyway might not be tantilising for the company.

We will just wait and see what awaits next in the zombies ranking world.

Just brainstorming here, but what do you all think about keeping the same stats tracked with the exception of downs and deaths. Just eliminate those 2 stats and in their place put more useful stats like melee kills and total points earned.

It seems to me downs and deaths are the only negatively perceived stats and the root cause of many problems.

And screw emblems. Make it to where you can see all the stats of all players you are about to get in a game with, whether they are randoms or friends.

I Always thought that the ranking system should be based on what type of player you are, example- if you are a camper with not many miles traveled, you could have a tent emblem. If you are a trainer, with many miles traveled, you could have a lighting bolt or something. If you are a Easter egg hunter, an Egg. That when inserted of judging a player by his rank, you can see what kind of a player he/she is and then decide if that player fits your team or not.

I feel you should take rank away but show the lobby in game achievements or badges. Things like a badge

30-100 round badges(obtained in a set in solo and another in co op)

1000 kills(in one game)

1000 head shots (in one game)

Ten different guns used in one game (have to get 200 kills with each weapon)

Then you can have these badges in a thropy case for the lobby to see. Another thing they can do is have stats for if this player quits early, the ratio of how many time this player have revived someone when there is a player downed. The percentage of doors that person opens when there are available doors to be opened, the average time this person plays a match for. What is the average round this person plays for. How many time they capped a round after level 20 when the other 3 bleed out. At the end have a MVP of the match, based on every that happens in the match, don't base it on just kills and downs. Take those stats into consideration and give the stars from 1-5. This will stop the rage quitting and make people play as a team

Anyone can run in a circle and shoot into a pile of the undead and make it to round whatever feel like making it to.

Maybe make the guns work then in the later rounds and this wouldn't be a problem. Anyway there are a lot of errors that happen while running in a circle and shooting into a pile of zombies that most don't have the skill to do.

Not everyone can run in a circle and shoot into a pile of zombies AND survive. Otherwise every single zombie player will boast higher rounds of 30+

Yes on paper this sounds simple but the skill to generate and keep in check the 'peleton' of zombies takes time to learn.

Once you have the majority of zombies bunched together then yes it is easy to pick them off. However in the higher rounds like 30+ usually you have to train 2-3 peletons as there are mulitple waves in the round.

I think a better alternative would be challenges. For example you complete challenge for collateral and x % of headshots during a round. This gives you xp. This xp can be used for tokens. These tokens allow you to buy persistent perks like extra headshot damage, a better starting gun, or extra perk slot. I think rewarding people for staying in the game is a good idea too. More you stay in the xp you get. However, after you use the tokens all your challenges get reset or something so you can't stack too many rewards. Instead of the green flash and ranking system I think this would keep zombies fresh and give people incentive to play for higher rounds. They could design challenges to give incentive to stay in the game.

I like the zombie stats, but I wish they designed it in a different way. They basically took all of your stats and made it into 1 symbol that everyone judges you on before you get into the game. I wish there was a way just to look at their stats other than the symbol. Then people wouldn't care so much and people would stop glitching. They just need to redesign zombie stats.

True in some cases but this is still no definite measure if they are rage quitters or not.

Some maps such as Bus Depot survival, for the uninitiated the round duration doesn't go for long. Also need to take into account the fact that when the lobby leader leaves...well on observation the clock stops counting at that point. So the other three players are left with a short game recorded in their channel.

This actually sucks because if I were judged based on this then I might definitely look like a quitter. I play games with friends that usually last 1.5-2 hrs then log on to play with randoms after. With lobby leaders leaving the games can be 5-10 minutes. Someone else looking at my channel might deem me a quitter and assume since the game didn't last for the usual >1.5 hrs I have quit out of the short games.

I've seen people with games of 5 mins, like 10 games in a row. Everyone have a game that people quit, but if you don't have any games recently that didn't last at least 1h, i'm backing that lobby. That's how i see if you are good enough or not. That's just my way, not everyone's. I haven't been in 10 games in a row where someone leave early, you should be really unlucky if you can't pull a 1 hour game in the last 10 games you played...

There is actually a way, at least one i used to judge people on. Look at their recent games on their profile. If i see a ton of 5-10 mins games, they clearly suck and prolly even rage quit. No thanks

This method might eliminate 5% of the quitters. Realistically, how many people only last 5-10 min in BO2? It takes that long to open everything in buried or hit bank - get power on - build tramplesteam in Die Rise.

I really prefer people to quit in 5-10 mins. It's the ones that waste an hour or two of my life that I'd like to avoid.

I actually think a ranking system is quite an awesome aspact of zombies and they definitely shouldn't throw it out the door. agree that it could be improved however. Why not create a ranking system comparable too the online multiplayer prestige system for zombies? And during the ranks you go up you can make use of small bonusses, for example: nicer looking emblems, colored guns, the ability to give other players money, permanent/persistent perks and the ability to get better guns from the mystery box.

You gain points for the overal team preformance, if you quite before the match ends you get less points. No de-ranking for performing bad.

I'm a casual COD player and when I play I mostly play zombies. A ranking such as this one would definitely make the game a lot more awesome for me than no ranking system.

I like the way the made the leaderboards. except i wish there were some like: Kabooms, max ammo, x2, etc picked up. and barriers rebuilt, and items built on tables.

I also miss lobby leaderboards that made finding a good match so much easier.

About the ranking system.. This should not rely on your leaderboard stats and kd. It should rely on how you average your player channel games. if you started out bad but got better youll be able to rank up according to your real skill, not and overall gameplay.

Then again, In WAW and Bo1. Getting down wasnt something to rage about. we just played zombies to play zombies. Sadly once you bring a ranking system in all we can ask is that they perfect it. because im attatched to it now lol.

Why not make it like multiplayer though, rank up with xp and have a zombie master rank at the end? Allow a emblem and playercard section aswell but in a zombie apocalypse style and color theme. id prefer that to the existing ranking system anyday lol